Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 19467-19470 [06-3593]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Number (757) 668–5555 or (757) 484–
8192.
(2) The Coast Guard Representatives
enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF–FM 13 and 16.
(d) Effective date: This regulation is
effective from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on June
30, 2006.
Dated: April 4, 2006.
Robert R. O’Brien, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E6–5584 Filed 4–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2006–0287; FRL–8158–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission by the state of Missouri
which revises the Construction Permits
Required rule, and we are taking no
action on the revisions made to the
Emissions Banking and Trading rule.
We propose to approve most of the
revisions to the Construction Permits
Required rule because the revisions
incorporate, by reference, the Federal
New Source Review reforms, published
in the Federal Register on December 31,
2002. In a February 28, 2006, letter from
the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Missouri requested EPA not
act on certain rule references.
Specifically, Missouri requested EPA
not act on references to Clean Unit
Exemptions, Pollution Control Projects,
and the record keeping provisions for
the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections. Missouri requests no action
on these provisions because of the June
24, 2005, United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit’s
decision, which vacated the Clean Unit
Exemption and Pollution Control
Project provisions and remanded back
to EPA the recordkeeping provisions for
the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections standard for when a source
must keep certain project related
records.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:24 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
OAR–2006–0287, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2006–
0287. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19467
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Planning and Development Branch,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas. EPA requests that you contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551–7942, or
by e-mail at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This section provides additional
information by addressing the following
questions:
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a
SIP?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
What Is the Background for EPA’s New
Source Review (NSR) Reform Rule?
What Is Missouri’s NSR Reform Rule and
What Action Has Missouri Requested on
the Rule?
What Is EPA’s Proposed Action on Missouri’s
Definition of ‘‘Baseline Area’’?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP
Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Proposing?
What Is the Federal Approval Process
for a SIP?
In order for state regulations to be
incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally
adopt the regulations and control
strategies consistent with state and
Federal requirements. This process
generally includes a public notice,
public hearing, public comment period,
and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or
control strategy is adopted, the state
submits it to us for inclusion into the
SIP. We must provide public notice and
seek additional public comment
regarding the proposed Federal action
on the state submission. If adverse
comments are received, they must be
addressed prior to any final Federal
action by us.
All state regulations and supporting
information approved by EPA under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) are incorporated into the
Federally-approved SIP. Records of such
SIP actions are maintained in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40,
part 52, entitled ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.’’
The actual state regulations which are
approved are not reproduced in their
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
19468
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
entirety in the CFR outright but are
‘‘incorporated by reference,’’ which
means that we have approved a given
state regulation with a specific effective
date.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
What Is Being Addressed in This
Document?
We are proposing to approve the
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources’ (MDNR) request to include,
as a revision to Missouri’s SIP,
amendments to rule 10 CSR 10–6.060,
Construction Permits Required, and we
are not acting on the revisions to 10 CSR
10–6.410, Emissions Banking and
Trading rule. These rules were adopted
by the Missouri Air Conservation
Commission on August 26, 2004, and
became effective under state law on
December 30, 2004. The rules were
submitted to EPA on February 25, 2005,
and the submission included comments
on the rules made during the state’s
adoption process, the state’s response to
comments and other information
necessary to meet EPA’s completeness
criteria. For additional information on
completeness criteria, the reader should
refer to 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
What Is the Background for EPA’s New
Source Review (NSR) Reform Rule?
The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part
of EPA’s implementation of Parts C and
D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470–
7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7470–7492, is the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program,
which applies in areas that meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), also known as, ‘‘attainment
areas’’ and in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine
whether the area meets the NAAQS,
also known as, ‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas.
Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7501–7515, is the nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) program, which
applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS, also known
as, ‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ Collectively,
the PSD and NNSR programs are
referred to as the ‘‘New Source Review’’
or NSR programs. EPA regulations
implementing these programs are
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166,
52.21 52.24 and part 51, appendix S.
The Missouri rules which are the
subject of this proposal address the Part
C requirements for attainment and
unclassifiable areas.
The CAA NSR programs are
preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and
modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA.
The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:24 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
and air pollution control technology
program requirements. Briefly, section
109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires
EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to
protect public health and secondary
NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once
EPA sets those standards, states must
develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, an SIP that contains emissions
limitations and other control measures
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each
SIP is required to contain a
preconstruction review program for the
construction and modification of any
stationary source of air pollution to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved
and maintained; to protect areas of clean
air; to protect air quality related values
(such as visibility) in national parks and
other areas; to assure that appropriate
emissions controls are applied, to
maximize opportunities for economic
development consistent with the
preservation of clean air resources; and
to ensure that any decision to increase
air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the
consequences of the decisions.
The 2002 NSR Reform rules made
changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 rules:
(1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions;
(2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual
methodology for determining whether a
major modification has occurred; (3)
allow major stationary sources to
comply with plantwide applicability
limits (PALs) to avoid having a
significant emission increase that
triggers the requirements of the major
NSR program; (4) provide a new
applicability provision for emissions
units that are designated clean units;
and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of
physical change or change in the
method of operation.
After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were
finalized and effective, various
petitioners challenged numerous
aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform rules,
along with portions of EPA’s 1980 NSR
rules (45 FR 5276 August 7, 1980). On
June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals issued a decision on
the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. New York v. United States, 413
F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution
control projects, remanded a portion of
the rules regarding exemption from
recordkeeping, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)
and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand
the other provisions included as part of
the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
yet responded to the Court’s remand
regarding recordkeeping provisions.
What Is Missouri’s NSR Reform Rule
and What Action Has Missouri
Requested on the Rule?
In this action, we propose approval of
revisions to Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10–
6.060, Construction Permits Required,
into the SIP. This rule incorporates by
reference the Federal PSD program in 40
CFR 52.21, including the 2002 NSR
Reform rules described above.
In relevant parts, the Missouri rule
excludes the public participation
requirements in § 52.21(q), in favor of
the Missouri public participation
process, previously approved in the SIP,
in 10 CSR 10–6.060 section (12)(B). The
Missouri rule retains a number of tables
and appendices which apply to the
State’s minor NSR program as well as
the PSD program. These include
provisions on innovative control
technologies (Appendix E), exclusion
from increment consumption (Appendix
G), and air quality models (Appendix F).
To the extent that these provisions or
similar provisions are addressed by
§ 52.21, the provisions of § 52.21
supersede the state provisions for
purposes of the PSD program. Other
provisions, such as the permit fee
provisions in Appendix (A) of 10 CSR
10–6.060, which are not addressed by
§ 52.21, remain in effect.
Missouri’s rule was adopted prior to
the New York decision described above
so it included the vacated and
remanded provisions of EPA’s rule.
However, Missouri requested in a
February 28, 2006, letter that EPA not
act on the PCP, Clean Unit Exemption
provisions, and the reasonable
possibility provision in the
recordkeeping provisions for the actualto-projected-actual emissions
projections applicability test. Missouri
has also clarified that they commit to
following EPA’s definition of
‘replacement unit’ and will follow
EPA’s clarification of how baseline
emissions for PALs will be calculated
(these clarifications to the EPA’s rules
were promulgated after the
incorporation by reference date in the
Missouri rule). When Missouri updates
the Construction Permits Required rule,
10 CSR 10–6.060, Missouri commits to
incorporating EPA’s definition of
replacement unit by reference and will
include EPA’s clarification of how
baseline emissions for PALs are to be
calculated.
We are taking no action on these
provisions and on revisions to rule 10
CSR 6.410, Emissions Banking and
Trading, because the only revision to
this rule was a change to prevent
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
sources from generating Early Reduction
Credits from Pollution Control Projects
(PCPs) that take advantage of the PCP
exclusion provisions in EPA’s NSR
Reform rules. Since the PCP exclusion
was vacated and we are not acting on it,
as it relates to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–
6.060, we are not acting upon the
revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–
6.410.
The remaining rule revisions being
proposed are approvable because
Missouri incorporated the December 31,
2002, New Source Review reform
regulation found in 40 CFR 52.21 by
reference. We also note that Missouri
clarified section (9)(C)1 of the
Construction Permits Required rule.
Section 9 outlines Hazardous Air
Pollutant permit requirements which
are exempt from hazardous air pollutant
permit requirements unless they are
listed on the source category list
established in accordance with section
112(c) of the CAA. We are taking no
action on including revisions to Section
9, because Section 9 addresses
hazardous air pollutants under Section
112 and is not presently in the SIP.
What Is EPA’s Proposed Action on
Missouri’s Definition of ‘‘Baseline
Area’’?
Missouri’s initial NSR reform
submission, which largely incorporates
40 CFR 52.21 by reference, retained the
state’s own definition of ‘‘baseline area’’
for purposes of section (1)(A)1.
Additionally, Missouri requested in the
February 28, 2006, letter that we
approve the Construction Permits
Required rule and retain Missouri’s
definition of baseline area in section
(1)(A)1. Missouri acknowledges that the
current Construction Permits Required
rule does not contain the statement,
‘‘designated as attainment or classifiable
under section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the
Act consistent with the Federal
definition of ‘‘baseline area.’’ We had
previously approved this definition of
baseline area with the specification that
Missouri redesignate the areas of
significant impact as the baseline area
(proposed rule, 47 FR 7696, and final
rule, 47 FR 26833). Missouri must make
area-specific designation requests and
EPA must approve the redesignation of
the area before Missouri could establish
new baseline areas under its rule.
Missouri commits to revising the
‘‘baseline area’’ definition to clarify it
will redesignate the areas of significant
impact as baseline areas according to
section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the CAA.
Missouri will submit these
redesignations to EPA for formal
approval before the new baseline area
can be used for PSD permitting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:24 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
purposes. While Missouri works to
revise the rule, Missouri commits to
implementing the baseline area
definition consistent with all Federal
regulations and will ensure that the air
quality increment analysis for permit
applications complies with all Federal
and state requirements.
Have the Requirements for Approval of
an SIP Revision Been Met?
The state submittal has met the public
notice requirements for SIP submissions
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The
submittal also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. In addition, as explained
below and in more detail in the
technical support document that is part
of this document, EPA believes that the
revisions meet the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing
regulations.
What Action Is EPA Proposing?
We propose to approve revisions to
Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10–6.060,
Construction Permits Required. Per
Missouri’s request, we are taking no
action on Clean Unit Exemptions,
Pollution Control Projects, and the
record keeping provisions for the actualto-projected-actual emissions
projections. We are not acting on
revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–
6.410, Emissions Banking and Trading,
because the only revision made to the
rule involves Pollution Control Projects.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that the proposed approvals in this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). The proposed partial
disapproval will not affect any existing
state requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the state
submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s partial
disapproval of the submittal does not
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19469
impose a new Federal requirement.
Therefore, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed disapproval action
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This proposed rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove an SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews an SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of an
SIP submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
19470
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 06–3593 Filed 4–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL–8158–3]
Washington: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: During a review of
Washington’s regulations, EPA
identified a variety of State-initiated
changes to Washington’s hazardous
waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended, (RCRA) for which the State
had not previously sought
authorization. EPA proposes to
authorize the State for the program
changes. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register, EPA is
authorizing the revisions by an
immediate final rule. EPA did not make
a proposal prior to the immediate final
rule because we believe this action is
not controversial and do not expect
comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this
authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we receive
written comments that oppose this
authorization during the comment
period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it
establishes, and we will not take further
action on this proposal. If we receive
comments that oppose this
authorization, EPA will publish a
document in the Federal Register
withdrawing the immediate final rule
before it takes effect. EPA will then
address public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. If we
receive comments that oppose only the
authorization of a particular change to
the State hazardous waste program, we
will withdraw that part of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:24 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
immediate final rule. However, the
authorization of program changes that
are not opposed by any comments will
become effective on the date established
in the immediate final rule. A Federal
Register withdrawal document will
specify which part of the authorization
will become effective and which part is
being withdrawn. EPA may not provide
further opportunity for comment. Any
parties interested in commenting on this
action must do so at this time. EPA is
also proposing to make corrections to
the table included in the authorization
Federal Register document for
Washington published on October 12,
1999.
DATES: Send your written comments by
May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by EPA–R10–RCRA–2006–
0087 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail:
kocourek.nina@epamail.epa.gov.
3. Fax: (206) 553–8509.
4. Mail: Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA,
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop
AWTB122, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
EPA–10–RCRA–2006–0087. EPA’s
policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public file
without change and may be made
available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system which
means that EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through https://www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public file and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA’s public docket
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage
at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, 98101. This Docket
Facility is open to the public from 9 to
11:30 a.m. and from 1 to 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The library telephone number
is (206) 553–1289. Additionally, hard
copies are available from the
Washington Department of Ecology, 300
Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503,
contact, Patricia Hervieux at (360) 407–
6756.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop AWT–122,
Seattle, Washington 9810, phone
number: (206) 553–6502, e-mail:
kocourek.nina@epa.gov; or Patricia
Hervieux, Washington Department of
Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey,
WA 98503; phone number: (360) 407–
6756, e-mail: pher461@ecy.wa.gov.
For
additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19467-19470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3593]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0287; FRL-8158-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission by the state of Missouri which revises the Construction
Permits Required rule, and we are taking no action on the revisions
made to the Emissions Banking and Trading rule. We propose to approve
most of the revisions to the Construction Permits Required rule because
the revisions incorporate, by reference, the Federal New Source Review
reforms, published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2002. In a
February 28, 2006, letter from the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Missouri requested EPA not act on certain rule references.
Specifically, Missouri requested EPA not act on references to Clean
Unit Exemptions, Pollution Control Projects, and the record keeping
provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections.
Missouri requests no action on these provisions because of the June 24,
2005, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit's decision, which vacated the Clean Unit Exemption and
Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the
recordkeeping provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections standard for when a source must keep certain project
related records.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0287, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0287. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551-7942, or
by e-mail at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
What Is the Background for EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform
Rule?
What Is Missouri's NSR Reform Rule and What Action Has Missouri
Requested on the Rule?
What Is EPA's Proposed Action on Missouri's Definition of ``Baseline
Area''?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Proposing?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) are incorporated
into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are
maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part
52, entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The
actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their
[[Page 19468]]
entirety in the CFR outright but are ``incorporated by reference,''
which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a
specific effective date.
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
We are proposing to approve the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources' (MDNR) request to include, as a revision to Missouri's SIP,
amendments to rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits Required, and
we are not acting on the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.410, Emissions
Banking and Trading rule. These rules were adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission on August 26, 2004, and became effective under
state law on December 30, 2004. The rules were submitted to EPA on
February 25, 2005, and the submission included comments on the rules
made during the state's adoption process, the state's response to
comments and other information necessary to meet EPA's completeness
criteria. For additional information on completeness criteria, the
reader should refer to 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
What Is the Background for EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform Rule?
The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in areas that meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as,
``attainment areas'' and in areas for which there is insufficient
information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS, also known
as, ``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7501-7515, is the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program, which
applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, also known
as, ``nonattainment areas.'' Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs
are referred to as the ``New Source Review'' or NSR programs. EPA
regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21 52.24 and part 51, appendix S. The Missouri rules which
are the subject of this proposal address the Part C requirements for
attainment and unclassifiable areas.
The CAA NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, an SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied, to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decisions.
The 2002 NSR Reform rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plantwide applicability limits (PALs) to avoid having a
significant emission increase that triggers the requirements of the
major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for
emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude
pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of physical
change or change in the method of operation.
After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were finalized and effective,
various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform
rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR rules (45 FR 5276 August
7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New
York v. United States, 413 F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a
portion of the rules regarding exemption from recordkeeping, e.g., 40
CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other
provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not
yet responded to the Court's remand regarding recordkeeping provisions.
What Is Missouri's NSR Reform Rule and What Action Has Missouri
Requested on the Rule?
In this action, we propose approval of revisions to Missouri rule,
10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits Required, into the SIP. This rule
incorporates by reference the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21,
including the 2002 NSR Reform rules described above.
In relevant parts, the Missouri rule excludes the public
participation requirements in Sec. 52.21(q), in favor of the Missouri
public participation process, previously approved in the SIP, in 10 CSR
10-6.060 section (12)(B). The Missouri rule retains a number of tables
and appendices which apply to the State's minor NSR program as well as
the PSD program. These include provisions on innovative control
technologies (Appendix E), exclusion from increment consumption
(Appendix G), and air quality models (Appendix F). To the extent that
these provisions or similar provisions are addressed by Sec. 52.21,
the provisions of Sec. 52.21 supersede the state provisions for
purposes of the PSD program. Other provisions, such as the permit fee
provisions in Appendix (A) of 10 CSR 10-6.060, which are not addressed
by Sec. 52.21, remain in effect.
Missouri's rule was adopted prior to the New York decision
described above so it included the vacated and remanded provisions of
EPA's rule. However, Missouri requested in a February 28, 2006, letter
that EPA not act on the PCP, Clean Unit Exemption provisions, and the
reasonable possibility provision in the recordkeeping provisions for
the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections applicability
test. Missouri has also clarified that they commit to following EPA's
definition of `replacement unit' and will follow EPA's clarification of
how baseline emissions for PALs will be calculated (these
clarifications to the EPA's rules were promulgated after the
incorporation by reference date in the Missouri rule). When Missouri
updates the Construction Permits Required rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060,
Missouri commits to incorporating EPA's definition of replacement unit
by reference and will include EPA's clarification of how baseline
emissions for PALs are to be calculated.
We are taking no action on these provisions and on revisions to
rule 10 CSR 6.410, Emissions Banking and Trading, because the only
revision to this rule was a change to prevent
[[Page 19469]]
sources from generating Early Reduction Credits from Pollution Control
Projects (PCPs) that take advantage of the PCP exclusion provisions in
EPA's NSR Reform rules. Since the PCP exclusion was vacated and we are
not acting on it, as it relates to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, we
are not acting upon the revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.410.
The remaining rule revisions being proposed are approvable because
Missouri incorporated the December 31, 2002, New Source Review reform
regulation found in 40 CFR 52.21 by reference. We also note that
Missouri clarified section (9)(C)1 of the Construction Permits Required
rule. Section 9 outlines Hazardous Air Pollutant permit requirements
which are exempt from hazardous air pollutant permit requirements
unless they are listed on the source category list established in
accordance with section 112(c) of the CAA. We are taking no action on
including revisions to Section 9, because Section 9 addresses hazardous
air pollutants under Section 112 and is not presently in the SIP.
What Is EPA's Proposed Action on Missouri's Definition of ``Baseline
Area''?
Missouri's initial NSR reform submission, which largely
incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, retained the state's own
definition of ``baseline area'' for purposes of section (1)(A)1.
Additionally, Missouri requested in the February 28, 2006, letter that
we approve the Construction Permits Required rule and retain Missouri's
definition of baseline area in section (1)(A)1. Missouri acknowledges
that the current Construction Permits Required rule does not contain
the statement, ``designated as attainment or classifiable under section
107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the Act consistent with the Federal definition
of ``baseline area.'' We had previously approved this definition of
baseline area with the specification that Missouri redesignate the
areas of significant impact as the baseline area (proposed rule, 47 FR
7696, and final rule, 47 FR 26833). Missouri must make area-specific
designation requests and EPA must approve the redesignation of the area
before Missouri could establish new baseline areas under its rule.
Missouri commits to revising the ``baseline area'' definition to
clarify it will redesignate the areas of significant impact as baseline
areas according to section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the CAA. Missouri
will submit these redesignations to EPA for formal approval before the
new baseline area can be used for PSD permitting purposes. While
Missouri works to revise the rule, Missouri commits to implementing the
baseline area definition consistent with all Federal regulations and
will ensure that the air quality increment analysis for permit
applications complies with all Federal and state requirements.
Have the Requirements for Approval of an SIP Revision Been Met?
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained below and in more detail in the technical
support document that is part of this document, EPA believes that the
revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.
What Action Is EPA Proposing?
We propose to approve revisions to Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060,
Construction Permits Required. Per Missouri's request, we are taking no
action on Clean Unit Exemptions, Pollution Control Projects, and the
record keeping provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections. We are not acting on revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.410, Emissions Banking and Trading, because the only revision made to
the rule involves Pollution Control Projects.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that the
proposed approvals in this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The proposed partial
disapproval will not affect any existing state requirements applicable
to small entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not
affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's partial disapproval of
the submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed disapproval action does not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove an SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of an SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
[[Page 19470]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 06-3593 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
